Re: What?

[Gabor Greif <address@hidden>]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> 
> In article <joswig-93EE80.14310512082002@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  Rainer Joswig <joswig@lispmachine.de> wrote:
> 
> > In article <3D57A1E1.A5C24DD0@lucent.com>,
> >  Gabor Greif <ggreif@lucent.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I cannot help, but this very much reminds me of infix syntax :-)
> > >
> > > The usage of punctuation always counted as the distinguishing feature of
> > > infix syntax.
> >
> > Hmm, why do you think Lisp's (or in prefix Dylan years ago) usage of
> > "prefix" syntax needs to be primitive? In reality prefix is more
> > complex and infix is not really infix.
> 
> I agree that Dylan's syntax is not *really* infix outside of the
> mathematical binary operators, but that is the commonly-use term for it,
> in order to contrast it with e.g. Lisp or Forth syntax.
> 


In a weak moment I proposed a Haskell-like infix notation for binary functions,
just like the semantical identity

foo(bar) <===> bar.foo

there could be a

instance?(foo, <integer>) <===> foo `instance?` <integer>

syntactical sugar.

I find it well readable at least.


	Gabor